Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

USA Politics/Election Thread: Biden, Harris, Trump, Democrats, Republicans, et al


DonLever

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Anything is possible, but I'd be very surprised in either Manchin or Sinema (or both) try and block the potential appointment. The court is already heavily skewed conservative, so this would merely be maintaining the status quo.

 

Interesting fact about the politicization of SCOTUS appointments: Back when Justice Scalia died, Amy Coney Barrett argued that his replacement should be ideologically in line with his beliefs.....

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-2016-interview-confirming-justices-election-year/

....that went out the window pretty quickly, when RBG passed and ACB was the nominee herself....<_<

That in itself should be enough to disqualify her.  The real lasting damage Trump did was the destruction of the SCOTUS though the appointment of pieces of garbage like ACB, a nutjob who is trying to turn the country into a barbaric theocracy, and Kavanaugh, a known rapist.  Dems need to do everything they can to minimize the influence of these bigots.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

That in itself should be enough to disqualify her.  The real lasting damage Trump did was the destruction of the SCOTUS though the appointment of pieces of garbage like ACB, a nutjob who is trying to turn the country into a barbaric theocracy, and Kavanaugh, a known rapist.  Dems need to do everything they can to minimize the influence of these bigots.

Unfortunately, there's little they can do, other than hope that Thomas and Alito kick the bucket while the Dems still hold the Senate majority

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

Manchin and Sinema are through and through bought and paid for by whoever interests them the most and signs the fattest cheques.  Guarantee if Biden tries to slip in someone they stonewall it.  They've done it with FAR lesser things, including voter reform and the filibuster issue.  Think a SCOTUS nominee won't be challenged by them as well?

I don't think they will, but I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Edited by RUPERTKBD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, 24K PureCool said:

Those two are the best GOP senators right now. Derail the Dems and have them take the fall without having any blood on their hands. 

 

The perfect crime. 

Pretty much.

 

These two literally have essentially destroyed any chance of their own party passing any meaningful legislation to get people money/assistance.  help businesses protect voters and more

 

They have given the GOP every single available piece of ammo they need to take back both the house AND senate in the midterms by being able to say that the Dems havent done anything and Biden is a dead in the water president that can't accomplish anything

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Unfortunately, there's little they can do, other than hope that Thomas and Alito kick the bucket while the Dems still hold the Senate majority

Sadly true, unless someone uses the second amendment for its intended purpose.

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Already rumours the Manchin and Sinema have issues with the alleged rumours that the scotus pick will be an african american person (name escaped me) their reasoning is that she does not have enough experience to hold the seat.

 

So there you have it.  Kavanagh and ACB acceptable.  The rumoured pick not.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Sadly true, unless someone uses the second amendment for its intended purpose.

There's also Impeachment. Unfortunately, American politicians seem to believe that this sort of thing is okay:

 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/01/31/is-ginni-thomas-a-threat-to-the-supreme-court

 

Long article, so I'm only posting the link, but it's amazing that nobody blinks an eye about this kind of conflict of interest in a Supreme Court Justice....

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Already rumours the Manchin and Sinema have issues with the alleged rumours that the scotus pick will be an african american person (name escaped me) their reasoning is that she does not have enough experience to hold the seat.

 

So there you have it.  Kavanagh and ACB acceptable.  The rumoured pick not.

Where are you getting this rumour from? :unsure:

 

All I could find was this: https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/what-expect-manchin-sinema-biden-s-high-court-pick-n1288060

 

Quote

 

But this Washington Post report rings true:

 

It still seems likely both will ultimately vote for whoever Biden nominates. Manchin and Sinema have both supported his lower court picks, including one that is high on Biden's short list for the high court: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. But their presence could also impact who gets picked in the first place. Biden has already promised he will nominate a Black woman, limiting the field of prospective justices.

Let's not forget that over the course of the last year, Manchin and Sinema have balked at exactly zero judicial nominees from the Biden White House. Literally, none.

What's more, while Sinema has taken inflexible positions on priorities such as tax breaks and preservation of the filibuster, she's made no public demands about the courts. Let's also not forget that the senator, facing unwelcome pressure from her own party in Arizona, has a strong incentive to back Biden's choice — especially if he nominates a judge she's already voted to confirm before — as a way to rebuild support among her own ostensible allies.

This is not to say the coming confirmation process will be effortless. If recent history is any guide, there will be plenty of drama, attack ads, and contentious questions during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings.

 

and this: https://www.vox.com/22902860/stephen-breyer-retires-joe-manchin-vote

Quote

But Democrats are optimistic. Manchin has voted for every lower court judge Biden has nominated so far, including now-DC circuit court judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who is often mentioned as a possible choice for Breyer’s seat. Manchin also voted for two of Trump’s three Supreme Court nominees — Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — so he can argue he is simply being bipartisan by supporting Biden’s pick as well. (Manchin voted against Amy Coney Barrett, but said that was because of the rushed process of her nomination.)

While I share your disdain for both of these grandstanders, I just don't see any political capital in blocking a pick that would still leave conservatives with a 2/3 majority on the Supreme Court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Where are you getting this rumour from? :unsure:

 

All I could find was this: https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/what-expect-manchin-sinema-biden-s-high-court-pick-n1288060

 

and this: https://www.vox.com/22902860/stephen-breyer-retires-joe-manchin-vote

While I share your disdain for both of these grandstanders, I just don't see any political capital in blocking a pick that would still leave conservatives with a 2/3 majority on the Supreme Court.

7/9 sounds better :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Unfortunately, there's little they can do, other than hope that Thomas and Alito kick the bucket while the Dems still hold the Senate majority

Sadly I think this conservative majority will hold. Just have the older judges retire once the gop are in power. Same goes for the liberal Democrats judges. 

 

Only way it changes is if someone dies suddenly or one of the party hold onto power for a long time 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Where are you getting this rumour from? :unsure:

 

All I could find was this: https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/what-expect-manchin-sinema-biden-s-high-court-pick-n1288060

 

and this: https://www.vox.com/22902860/stephen-breyer-retires-joe-manchin-vote

While I share your disdain for both of these grandstanders, I just don't see any political capital in blocking a pick that would still leave conservatives with a 2/3 majority on the Supreme Court.

Npr had a mention about them being an issue for the Dems and had a blurb about how there was a statement from one of them about experience being a necessary factor for a scotus position during the acb vote and how it would affect their willingness to block or nominate bidens scotus pick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, 24K PureCool said:

Only way it changes is if someone dies suddenly or one of the party hold onto power for a long time 

There is still the possibility to hire more Supreme judges, as the US constitution does not have a number limit for that job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Npr had a mention about them being an issue for the Dems and had a blurb about how there was a statement from one of them about experience being a necessary factor for a scotus position during the acb vote and how it would affect their willingness to block or nominate bidens scotus pick

Hmm...was that on the air? Don't see anything on the website....:unsure:

 

Anyway, from what I can find, the favorite for the nomination is Ketanji Brown Jackson. Both Manchin and Sinema voted to confirm her nomination to a lower court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gurn said:

There is still the possibility to hire more Supreme judges, as the US constitution does not have a number limit for that job.

Yep. But then you run into that nasty Filibuster thing again and you're right back to square Manchin.....

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gurn said:

There is still the possibility to hire more Supreme judges, as the US constitution does not have a number limit for that job.

Ya, I've posted how there was a time where the number of justices was equal to the number of Federal circuits.  Have one justice "represent" each district.  Throw in some term limits, and then each POTUS would get to appoint justices.  Instead, there are a small number of justices that sit for decades.  CT is the oldest who has been there for 30 years.

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Hmm...was that on the air? Don't see anything on the website....:unsure:

 

Anyway, from what I can find, the favorite for the nomination is Ketanji Brown Jackson. Both Manchin and Sinema voted to confirm her nomination to a lower court.

Yes radio blurb.  Not sure who the spokesperson was though speaking.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

Ya, I've posted how there was a time where the number of justices was equal to the number of Federal circuits.  Have one justice "represent" each district.  Throw in some term limits, and then each POTUS would get to appoint justices.  Instead, there are a small number of justices that sit for decades.  CT is the oldest who has been there for 30 years.

Honestly I would go further and remove the president from the nomination equation and have the federal circuit judges figure it out among themselves. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gurn said:

There is still the possibility to hire more Supreme judges, as the US constitution does not have a number limit for that job.

Problem with that is what is stopping both side from just add justices everytime they are in power to get themselves an judicial advantage. 

 

The problem is the politicization of the court. You know the judicial branch is in trouble of being illegitimate the moment you have terms like conservative and liberal judges. 

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 24K PureCool said:

Problem with that is what is stopping both side from just add justices everytime they are in power to get themselves an judicial advantage. 

 

The problem is the politicization of the court. You know the judicial branch is in trouble of being illegitimate the moment you have terms like conservative and liberal judges. 

The fact that people like Mitch McConnell can use the filibuster to deny Presidents the ability to appoint Supreme Court Justices (which is their Constitutional right and duty, BTW) makes it obvious that the SCOTUS has become completely politicized.

 

If it were truly non-partisan (as Justices Roberts, Coney-Barrett and Thomas have so disingenuously claimed) then it wouldn't matter who was appointed, just so long as they were qualified. (Fun fact: SCOTUS Justices don't have to be lawyers, or even have attended Law School)

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx

Quote

The Constitution does not specify qualifications for Justices such as age, education, profession, or native-born citizenship. A Justice does not have to be a lawyer or a law school graduate, but all Justices have been trained in the law. Many of the 18th and 19th century Justices studied law under a mentor because there were few law schools in the country.

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...